Jump to content

JPM - JP Morgan


shalab

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 410
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101084668?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=101084668|Paulson+on+JPM:+I+shouldn

 

"I'm not going to comment on the merits of any legal case, legal settlement," Paulson said. "[but] it's hard for me to be totally objective, when I look at what Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan did. Because it's one thing to make an acquisition like that [of Bear Stearns], it's another thing to make a decision over a weekend."

 

"Even though JPMorgan was, in Paulson's words, "begged" to make the Bear Stearns and WaMu acquisitions, the former Treasury secretary said the government was not providing any indemnity. "Jamie knew that at the time."

 

Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs chief, said he's not so sure these purchases weren't also in JPMorgan's interest. "But to make them under those circumstances, it took someone with a great deal of courage and confidence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/10/21/j-p-morgan-to-sell-local-mutual-funds-in-china/?mod=yahoo_hs

 

Chinese authorities have given J.P. Morgan Chase'sJPM +0.17% China unit a bit of good news to offset the generally unpleasant recent headlines involving fines and a criminal probe into the investment bank’s U.S. parent. The local unit said Monday that it has received approval to sell local mutual funds in China, joining the first batch of foreign banks that can compete with local banks in a sector that is expected to cross the $1 trillion mark in the next couple years.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303672404579147550789233662

 

"J.P. Morgan also has continued to spend heavily on Washington lobbying, hitting $8 million in 2012, a record for the bank, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That was up from $7.6 million in 2011 and well ahead of its closest peer, Wells Fargo & Co., which spent $6.8 million in 2012."

 

uh-hum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is finally punishing these banksters for purchasing Bear Stearns at the urging of these regulators.

 

It is about time.  How much longer can these strong players that didn't get themselves in trouble be allowed to get away with helping their government?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is finally punishing these banksters for purchasing Bear Stearns at the urging of these regulators.

 

It is about time.  How much longer can these strong players that didn't get themselves in trouble be allowed to get away with helping their government?

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is finally punishing these banksters for purchasing Bear Stearns at the urging of these regulators.

 

It is about time.  How much longer can these strong players that didn't get themselves in trouble be allowed to get away with helping their government?

+1

'

 

yet all these settlements/fines is not pushing down the stock much...

comon! i want a better entry price!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/10/27/j-p-morgan-settlement-puts-government-in-tight-spot/?mod=yahoo_hs

 

"Last week’s $5.1 billion settlement between J.P. Morgan and the Federal Housing Finance Agency over mortgage bonds sold to Fannie MaeFNMA +13.40% and Freddie MacFMCC +11.89% complicates things. Despite the Justice Department’s stance, that agreement leaves the door open for J.P. Morgan to sue the FDIC for the WaMu portion of the payment, some $1.2 billion.

 

The really bad news: After reading the WaMu purchase agreement and speaking to the two sides, it is apparent that there is no clear-cut answer on whether J.P. Morgan inherited these mortgage liabilities. The document does contain a detailed description of what’s notin the purchase (see page 25 for those scoring this at home), but there is no specific mention of mortgage bonds.

 

The killer paragraphs, according to the J.P. Morgan side, are those stating that the buyer is not responsible for “claims based on any action or inaction” or “any malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance” by directors, officers or employees of WaMu. In J.P. Morgan’s interpretation, this includes selling mortgage securities.

 

The stakes are high, even beyond the $13 billion. Wall Street executives and some lawyers warn that if J.P. Morgan is found liable for the WaMu bonds, other banks will think twice before buying failed rivals. “The government will ensure that no bank ever buys another rival in distress,” a top lawyer told me last week."

 

 

"http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304069604579155880933284314"

 

(about Fan and Fred exec.) "The SEC is still suing former senior executives at both companies for securities fraud. The cases may not come to trial until 2015, which is convenient for the government as it pursues the Fan-and-Fred-as-victims case with Morgan and other banks. You never know what a trial might tell us about how the companies decided to buy mortgage-backed securities sold by banks. "

 

I own JPM and obviously biased, but that's very interesting.  If what he says makes sense it can be applied to all other banks and that we should expect farther push before the trials start.

 

Another paragraph:

 

"The evidence against Fan and Fred is so voluminous we could go on listing it for days, but the feds want everyone to forget all that as they try to whitewash Washington's role in the panic. They present the duo as victims to extort $5 billion from Morgan, which never needed a bailout, to make up for the $188 billion taxpayer bailout that Fan and Fred required. Little Orphan Fannie is one more political disguise for the bandits of the Beltway. "

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is finally punishing these banksters for purchasing Bear Stearns at the urging of these regulators.

 

It is about time.  How much longer can these strong players that didn't get themselves in trouble be allowed to get away with helping their government?

+1

'

 

yet all these settlements/fines is not pushing down the stock much...

comon! i want a better entry price!

 

well, the settlements reduce the uncertainty and I guess the market likes that, in addition they are paying a decent dividend so unless they cancel it the stock price probably won't drop much and cause the yield to rise by a lot. They have decent reserves, might sue for some back and they are getting some positive articles in the media as being the underdog (I was coughing when I wrote that. Sorry.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB10001424052702304470504579161532779973534.html?mod=BOL_article_full_more

 

J.P. Morgan's Mortgage Troubles Ran Deep

 

 

The bank dealt with some of the biggest subprime lenders of the time, including Countrywide Financial Corp., Fremont Investment & Loan and WMC Mortgage Corp., a former unit of General Electric, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency complaint.

 

J.P. Morgan's relationship with New Century, a subprime lender that went bankrupt in 2007 and later faced a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and shareholder suits, shows that the New York bank was part of the frenzied push to package mortgages for investors at the end of the housing boom.

 

The New Century deal, J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-NC1, was one of 103 cited in the lawsuit against J.P. Morgan brought by the FHFA, which oversees Freddie Mac and home-loan giant Fannie Mae .

 

The $5.1 billion settlement is part of a larger tentative deal with the Justice Department and other agencies that would have J.P. Morgan pay a total of $13 billion. That deal is expected to be completed this week.

 

"While these settlements seem huge, given the nature of the offenses, they are trivially small," said William Frey, chief executive of Greenwich Financial Services LLC, a broker-dealer that has participated in investor lawsuits against banks that packaged mortgages. J.P. Morgan declined to comment on the settlement or any loans in the bonds it bought.

 

The FHFA has gotten aggressive in recouping losses from mortgages and securities sold to Fannie and Freddie. In 2011 it sued 18 lenders, and J.P. Morgan was only the fourth to settle.

 

To be sure, the New Century deal was among J.P. Morgan's worst performers, and other mortgage-backed securities it issued at the time have held up better. An improving economy and housing market have lifted many mortgage bonds sold in 2006 and 2007.

 

But that is of little consolation to Freddie Mac, which bought more than a third of the $910 million New Century bond deal in 2006 and still is sitting on losses.

 

The group of loans backing Freddie's chunk of the deal had more high-risk loans than the rest of the pool. Nearly 44% of Freddie's piece had loan-to-value ratios between 80% and 100%, compared with 31% for the rest, according to the deal prospectus.

 

What's more, nearly half the loans backing the New Century deal were from California and Florida, two states hit hard by the housing bust. Of the 4,209 loans in the bond, more than half have some experienced distress, according to BlackBox data.

 

Three debt-rating firms gave the top slice of the deal AAA ratings. But as the housing market soured, a series of downgrades starting in 2007 took them all into "junk" territory by July 2011. As of last month, nearly a quarter of the principal of the underlying loans in the deal had been wiped out, with a third of the remaining balance delinquent or in some stage of foreclosure, according to BlackBox.

 

New Century made two loans for the Perthshire Lane home for $207,350, representing 100% of the home's value. That left the borrower with little cushion if home prices fell or the borrower's income dropped. According to foreclosure documents and other records, Evelin Diaz owns the home. Ms. Diaz couldn't be reached.

 

The Palm Coast loan recently was modified, with cuts to the principal and the interest rate, reducing the borrower's payment significantly, said Mr. Lambert. Mortgage investors dealing with delinquent loans often must choose whether to allow loan modifications to the principal or interest, or face foreclosure, which would cost them even more.

 

Investors such as Freddie Mac weren't the only ones hurt. The New Century deal also became part of complex mortgage investments known as collateralized debt obligations, which repackage risky parts of bonds into still other securities.

 

One such investment, Silver Elms CDO II, included a riskier slice of the J.P. Morgan-New Century bond deal, according to a lawsuit filed against the bank this year in New York State Supreme Court. The suit claims statements made by J.P. Morgan, testifying to New Century's underwriting standards, were false and misleading. Calls to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, lawyers for Silver Elms and other investors suing J.P. Morgan, weren't returned.

 

The funds allege that one couple whose mortgage was in J.P. Morgan's NC1 pool had income in 2005 of only $826 a month to support monthly debts of $6,478, including payments on a $588,000 mortgage granted by New Century that year. That couple declared bankruptcy in 2006, according to the lawsuit.

 

"The truth was that New Century had completely abandoned its stated underwriting guidelines," the investors said in a court document.

 

Four months after the New Century deal, J.P. Morgan packaged another $905 million of New Century loans into J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-NC2.

 

That deal has performed even worse: A quarter of the principal has vanished and 36% of the remaining balance is in default. One of the buyers was Fannie Mae.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The government will ensure that no bank ever buys another rival in distress,” a top lawyer told me last week."

 

That's for damn sure!

 

Buffett said the next crises will be a different form, but no bank CEO in their right mind will ever help the government again.

Obama called them fat cat bankers and then told justice to go after banks that helped them get through the crises.

He should take a page from fdrs book when he spoke to business leaders to work together after being in office for a few years and changed tactics after being so combative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more drama

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101151955

 

 

JPMorgan's settlement with Justice Dept. at risk: WSJ

 

It seems the bank's lawyers are trying to strengthen their position.  I'm still holding on all my LEAPS and betting the bank will do just fine.  AG Holder is basking in his political glory with all this news, is he going to fail the deal and give that up? Even if he does, the FHFA deal is already set and JPM will proceed with claiming back the WAMU part. No one is going to charge the bank with any real criminal offenses to see it fail. JPM also showed they have quite the reserves. Than again, the government was shut down recently just because someone felt like it so maybe thinking about it rationally is not the way to go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...